CITY CORPORATION LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. ANIRUDDHA PRADYUMNA DESHPANDE..versusDEEPAK SHIVRAM PATHARE AND ORS.

2026:BHC-AUG:29404



                                                                      CA.5791.2026.odt


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5791 OF 2026
                                                IN
                                  FIRST APPEAL NO.2638 OF 2025

            City Corporation Limited,
            City Chambers 917/19A,
            F.C. Road, Pune 411004
            Through its Managing Director -
            Mr. Aniruddha Pradyumna Deshpande                    ..Applicant

                          Vs.

            1.       Mr. Deepak Shivram Pathare,
                     Age: Adult, Occupation: Agr.
                     Residing at Karegaon Tal. Shriramour
                     (Original Appellant in
                     First Appeal No. 2638 of 2025)

            2.       Mr. Vijay Shivram Pathare,
                     Age: Adult, Occupation: Agri.,
                     Residing at Karegaon, Tal. Shriramour,
                     Dist. Ahhilyanagar.
                     (Original Respondent in
                     First Appeal No. 2638 of 2025)              Respondents

                                              ----
            Mr.G.K.Naik-Thigale, Advocate h/f. Mr.Paresh B. Patil (Borse), Advocate
            for applicant
            Mr.Niteen V. Gaware – Patil, Advocate h/f. Mr.Sanjay N. Gaikwad,
            Advocate for respondent no.2
                                           ----

                                        CORAM :      AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                        DATE  :      JULY 17, 2026
                                       2                  CA.5791.2026.odt



ORDER :-

           Heard Mr.G.K.Naik-Thigale, learned counsel i/b. Mr.Paresh

B. Patil (Borse), learned counsel for the applicants. Mr.N.V.Gaware-

Patil, learned counsel, suo motu appears for respondent no.2. It is

informed that respondent no.1 is served privately.


2.         This is an application for review of the order dated

08.10.2025 passed by this court in First Appeal No.2638 of 2025.


3.         Probate Application No.1 of 2018 filed by the present

respondent no.2 - Vijay was allowed by learned Civil Judge, Senior

Division, Shrirampur. Present respondent no.1 – Dipak filed Probate

Application No.2 of 2019 thereby challenging the judgment and order

passed in Probate Application No.1 of 2018 and for grant of probate

in the Probate Application No.2 of 2019. The said proceedings came

to be turned down by a reasoned judgment and order dated

10.11.2021 passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Shrirampur

in Probate Application No.2 of 2019.


4.         The said judgment and order was taken up in challenge

before this court under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act,

1925 by filing First Appeal No.2638 of 2025. The appeal was filed

beyond delay. After hearing both the parties and recording consent
                                    3                      CA.5791.2026.odt



of the respondents therein, the application was allowed and the

delay was condoned. After hearing both the parties on merit, this

court vide judgment and order dated 08.10.2025, dismissed the First

Appeal on merit.


5.         It is informed that the Original Applicant, i.e. present

respondent no.1 challenged the dismissal of the First Appeal before

the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Petition(s) for Special Leave to

Appeal (C) No.32383/2025.    The Hon’ble Supreme Court did not find

the case worth to grant leave.      As such, the S.L.P. came to be

dismissed. The original applicant then filed an application before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking review of the order rejecting the

S.L.P.   Said application also came to be rejected by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court. On this backdrop, present application is filed seeking

review of the judgment and order dated 08.10.2025, passed in First

Appeal No.2638 of 2025.


6.         Mr.Thigale, learned counsel for the applicant, would

submit that the applicant is a third party to the proceedings,

however,    the applicant has valuable interest in the immovable

properties for which probate proceedings were initiated.    He would

submit that grant of probate in Probate Application No.1 of 2018 as

also rejection of Probate Application No.2 of 2019 caused prejudice
                                     4                       CA.5791.2026.odt



to the civil rights of the present applicant. He would submit that for

that purpose only and to demonstrate that suppressing the

applicant’s civil rights, the proceedings were taken up before the trial

court as well as this court and before the Hon’ble Supreme Court too,

present review application is preferred.     Mr.Thigale would submit

that the applicant is conscious about his civil rights and apprehend

that the orders passed in the proceedings which were at the behest

of the respondents would come adversely in the applicant’s way to

establish its civil rights. He would submit that the present application

is filed, therefore, to bring a fact on record that the probate

proceedings and the First Appeal were filed by the present

respondents in collusion with each other. With this, Mr.Thigale,

learned counsel for the applicant, would urge for allowing the

application and to review the judgment and order dated 08.10.2025 ,

passed in First Appeal No.2638 of 2025.


7.          Mr.Nitin Gavare - Patil has strong objection to these

submissions. He objected that no case for review is set up by the

applicant. He objects any collusion between the respondents. His

further contention is that the First Appeal is dismissed by this Court.

That, instead of challenging the Judgment and Order in original

proceedings, the applicant has chosen incorrect way to file review.
                                       5                         CA.5791.2026.odt



He further submits that even this application cannot be treated as an

application to recall an earlier judgment or order. He relies upon the

decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Jain Vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC

3677.


8.    Heard both the sides. A review application has to be decided

within the parameters of Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The text of Order XLVII reads thus:-


                  1. Application for review of judgment.—

                  (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved—
                        (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is
                        allowed, but from which no appeal has been
                        preferred,
                        (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is
                        allowed, or
                        (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of
                        Small Causes,

                          and who, from the discovery of new and important
                  matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due
                  diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be
                  produced by him at the time when the decree was passed
                  or order made, or on account of some mistake or error
                  apparent on the face of the record or for any other
                  sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree
                  passed or order made against him, may apply for a review
                  of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made
                  the order.

                  (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order
                  may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the
                      6                            CA.5791.2026.odt



pendency of an appeal by some other party except where
the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and
the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to
the Appellate Court the case on which he applied for the
review.

2. To whom applications for review may be made.—Rep. by
the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1956 (66 of
1956) s. 14.

3. Form of applications for review.—The provisions as to
the form of preferring appeals shall apply, mutatis
mutandis, to applications for review.

4. Application where rejected.—
(1) Where it appears to the Court that there is not
sufficient ground for a review, it shall reject the application.
(2) Application where granted.—Where the Court is of
opinion that the application for review should be granted,
it shall grant the same:      Provided that—
         (a) no such application shall be granted without
        previous notice to the opposite party, to enable him
        to appear and be heard in support of the decree or
        order, a review of which is applied for; and
        (b) no such application shall be granted on the
        ground of discovery of new matter or evidence
        which the applicant alleges was not within his
        knowledge, or could not be adduced by him when
        the decree or order was passed or made, without
        strict proof of such allegation.

5. Application for review in Court consisting of two or more
Judges.—Where the Judge or Judges, or any one of the
Judges, who passed the decree or made the order a review
of which is applied for, continues or continued attached to
the Court at the time when the application for a review is
presented, and is not or not precluded by absence or other
cause for a period of six months next after the application
from considering the decree or order to which the
application refers, such Judge or Judges or any of them
shall hear the application, and no other Judge or Judges of
the Court shall hear the same.
                     7                           CA.5791.2026.odt




6. Application where rejected.—

       (1) Where the application for a review is heard by
       more than one Judge and the Court is equally
       divided, the application shall be rejected.

       (2) Where there is a majority, the decision shall be
       according to the opinion of the majority.

7. Order of rejection not appealable. Objections to order
granting application.—
 (1) An order of the Court rejecting the application shall
not be appealable; but an order granting an application
may be objected to at once by an appeal from the order
granting the application or in an appeal from the decree or
order finally passed or made in the suit.
(2) Where the application has been rejected in
consequence of the failure of the applicant to appear, he
may apply for an order to have the rejected application
restored to the file, and, where it is proved to the
satisfaction of the Court that he was prevented by any
sufficient cause from appearing when such application was
called on for hearing, the Court shall order it to be restored
to the file upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it
thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for hearing the same.
(3) No order shall be made under sub-rule (2) unless
notice of the application has been served on the opposite
party.

8. Registry of application granted, and order for re-
hearings.—When an application for review is granted, a
note thereof shall be made in the register and the Court
may at once re-hear the case or make such order in regard
to the re-hearing as it thinks fit.

9. Bar of certain application.—No application to review an
order made on an application for a review or a decree or
order passed or made on a review shall be entertained.
                                         8                       CA.5791.2026.odt



9.          Looking to the contentions raised by the applicant in this

proceedings, I do not find that the application fits in any of the

parameters as set out in Order XLVII of C.P.C.        So far as the civil

rights of the applicant are concerned, the law of probate and the

ambit of probate proceedings is well settled by the Apex Court in

Ishwardeo Narain Singh Vs. Kamta Devi and others, (1953)1

SCC 295 and by this court in Ramchandra Hande Vs. Vithalrao

Hande and ors., 2011 (4) ALL MR 189. Its trite law that probate

proceedings do not confer title nor decide legality of title, but it is

confined only to the genuineness of the instrument and correctness

of its execution.


10.         In view of the above, I do not find any case to cause

interference.   The   application    does    not   meet   even    a    single

qualification laid down in Order XLVII of Civil Procedure Code 1908 to

seek review, and the same           is    absolutely misconceived.         The

alternate request to recall the judgment and order passed in First

Appeal do not stand on any legal footing and the same is ill-founded.

Hence, the application stands dismissed.



                                         [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]

                                ………..
KBP